1.

INTRODUCTION
Unlike slender beams, the ultimate strength of simply
supported reinforced concrete deep beams (hereinafter,
simple deep beams) with a ratio of shear span-to-
effective depth of less than 2.5 is generally governed
by their shear capacities. Since the shear failures of
simple deep beams are brittle, the shear designs must be
conducted cautiously to prevent brittle failures. The
structural behavior of simple deep beams is
complicated and is mainly controlled by the mechanical
relationships between the primary design variables
including shear span-to-effective depth ratio a/d,
flexural reinforcement ratio , and the compressive
strength of concrete f
c
. To closely examine the
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1031
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load
Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I)
Model & Load Distribution Ratio
Byung-Hun Kim
1
and Young-Mook Yun
2,
*
1
Structural Department, Hyundai Engineering Co. LTD, Seoul 158-050, Korea
2
School of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Daegu 702-701, Korea
(Received: 8 February 2010; Received revised form: 30 December 2010; Accepted: 4 January 2011)
Abstract: The ultimate strength of simply supported reinforced concrete deep beams
is governed by the capacity of the shear resistance mechanism. The structural behavior
of the deep beams is controlled mainly by the mechanical relationships between the
primary design variables including shear span-to-effective depth ratio, flexural
reinforcement ratio, and the compressive strength of concrete. In this study, a simple
indeterminate strut-tie model which reflects all characteristics of the ultimate strength
and behavior of the deep beams was presented. A load distribution ratio, defined as the
fraction of load transferred by a truss mechanism, was also proposed to help structural
designers perform the rational design of deep beams by using the strut-tie model
approaches of current design codes. In the determination of the load distribution ratio,
a concept of balanced shear reinforcement ratio which ensures the ductile shear design
of the deep beams was introduced, and the effect of the primary design variables was
reflected through numerous numerical analyses of the presented indeterminate strut-tie
model. In the companion paper, the validity of the presented model and load
distribution ratio was examined by applying them to the evaluation of ultimate
strength of 234 simply supported reinforced concrete deep beams tested to failure.
Key words: reinforced concrete, deep beam, indeterminate strut-tie model, load distribution ratio, ultimate strength.
complicated structural behavior of simple deep beams,
analytical and experimental works have been
performed. However, any satisfactory theories or
approaches have not yet been established.
Recently, a strut-tie model approach known as a
rational design method for structural concrete with
disturbed regions has been suggested for the shear
designs of simple deep beams (Hwang et al. 2000;
Foster and Malik 2002; Hwang and Lu 2002;
Matamoros and Wong 2003; Quintero-Febres et al.
2006; Park and Kuchma 2007; Tjhin and Kuchma 2007;
Ashour and Yang 2008), and the approach has been
accepted in the current design codes including the CSA
(1984), NZS 3101 (1995), BS8110 (1997), FIB (1999),
*Corresponding author. Email address: ymyun@knu.ac.kr; Fax: +82-53-950-6564; Tel: +82-53-950-5610.
AASTHO-LRFD (2007), and ACI 318M-08 (2008).
However, for all that the design codes have been
established on the basis of research results of simple
deep beams, an appropriate strut-tie model that
represents a true load transfer mechanism for simple
deep beams and reflects the effects of the primary
design variables on shear behavior has not been
provided. Furthermore, the fundamental concept that the
load acting on top of a simple deep beam must be
transferred to supports by concrete and reinforcing bars
has not been satisfied.
To improve the problem, an indeterminate strut-tie
model that includes both the arch and truss load transfer
mechanisms must be used for the analysis and design of
simple deep beams. However, since the cross-sectional
forces of struts and ties in an indeterminate strut-tie
model depend on the stiffness of struts and ties, the load
transferred by an arch or truss mechanism defined in this
study as a load distribution ratio of an indeterminate
strut-tie model must be determined rationally to employ
the strut-tie model approaches of the current design
codes in practice. To find a solution to the problem,
much research has been conducted regarding the
development of analysis and design approaches with
indeterminate strut-tie models (Alshegeir 1992; Yun
2000; Tjhin and Kuchma 2002; Park et al. 2005), of
indeterminate strut-tie models for simple deep beams
(Hwang et al. 2000; Foster and Malik 2002; Matamoros
and Wong 2003; Bakir and Boduroglu 2005; Alcocer
and Uribe 2008), and of load distribution ratios of
indeterminate strut-tie models for simple deep beams
(Foster and Gilbert 1998; FIB 1999). In the previous
studies, however, the analysis and design of simple deep
beams were based on the direct application of finite
element material nonlinear analyses of indeterminate
strut-tie models, and the load distribution ratios were
proposed based on the researchers experience and
subjectivity.
In this study, a simple indeterminate strut-tie model
reflecting all characteristics of the ultimate strength and
complicated structural behavior is presented for the
design of simple deep beams. In addition, a load
distribution ratio obtained by conducting numerous
finite element material nonlinear analyses of a single
type of indeterminate strut-tie model with the
changeable primary design variables is presented. To
ensure the ductile shear failure design of reinforced
concrete deep beams, a concept of balanced shear
reinforcement ratio requiring a simultaneous failure of
inclined concrete strut and vertical steel tie is introduced
in the determination of the ratio. The presented load
distribution ratio may help structural designers perform
the design of simple deep beams with the strut-tie model
approaches of the current design codes since it provides
a reasonable basis to transform an indeterminate strut-
tie model into a determinate one.
2. STRUT-TIE MODEL AND LOAD
DISTRIBUTION RATIO OF PREVIOUS
STUDIES
The strut-tie model design of simple deep beams is
usually conducted by a determinate strut-tie model
representing an arch mechanism, shown in Figure 1(a),
in which an external concentrated load is directly
transferred to the supports by an inclined strut or a truss
mechanism, shown in Figure 1(b), in which an external
concentrated load is transferred to the supports by the
combination of inclined struts and a vertical tie. The
cross-sectional forces of struts and ties in these types of
strut-tie models are determined regardless of the
stiffness of the struts and ties.
The CSA (1984) and AASHTO-LRFD (2007) have
suggested a basic concept of a strut-tie model that
satisfies equilibrium and constitutive relationships, and
1032 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I) Model & Load Distribution Ratio
a
L
d
P P
a
L
d
P P
(a) Strut-tie model representing arch mechanism
(b) Strut-tie model representing truss mechanism
Figure 1. Determinate strut-tie models for simply supported
deep beams
they have allowed the design of simple deep beams with
the strut-tie model shown in Figure 1(a). This has
influenced the ACI 318M-08 (2008) to allow the same
model for simple deep beams with the requirement that
the angle between a concrete strut and a tie be greater
than 25 degrees. When the requirement on the angle is
considered, the strut-tie model shown in Figure 1(a)
can be used for simple deep beams with a shear span-
to-effective depth ratio a/d of less than 1.93 (a/z = 2.14,
z = 0.9d, d = 0.9h, h = depth). In addition, according to
the design book of the ACI Subcommittee 445-1
(2002), the simple deep beams with a/d 1.93 can be
designed by using the strut-tie model shown in
Figure 1(b). In the CSA, AASHTO-LRFD, and ACI
318M-08, any additional provisions for the application
of indeterminate strut-tie models to structural concrete
including simple deep beams are not provided.
A provision for the selection of a strut-tie model
according to the shear span-to-moment arm length ratio
a/d of simple deep beams was recommended by the
FIB (1999). In the ranges of a/z 0.5 and a/z 2.0, the
strut-tie models representing an arch mechanism and a
truss mechanism as shown in Figures 2(a) and 2(c),
were suggested. Additionally, a strut-tie model
representing a combination of arch and truss
mechanisms, as shown in Figure 2(b), was suggested in
the range of 0.5 < a/z < 2.0. Since the strut-tie model in
Figure 2(b) is the first-order indeterminate truss
structure, a load distribution ratio was proposed to
calculate the cross-sectional forces of struts and ties by
simply employing the force equilibrium equations at
nodes. With the load distribution ratio of Eqn 1,
varying linearly as a function of a/z, the cross-sectional
force of a vertical steel tie P
w
in the truss mechanism of
Figure 2(a) is directly obtained from the following
equation:
(1)
where P is a vertically applied load and N
sd
is a
horizontally applied axial load.
Similar to the FIBs strut-tie models, three types of
models according to the ratio of a/z were suggested by
Foster and Gilbert (1998). They were the two
determinate strut-tie models of Figures 2(a) and 2(c) in
the ranges of a/z 1 and , and an indeterminate
strut-tie model of Figure 2(b) in the range
of . The load distribution ratio was also
proposed as follows:
(2) = =

P
P
a z
w
/ 1
3 1
1 3 a z /
a z / 3
= =

P
P
a z
N P
w
sd
2 1
3
/
/
3. STRUT-TIE MODEL AND LOAD
DISTRIBUTION RATIO OF
PRESENT STUDY
3.1. Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model
The ultimate behavior of simple deep beams is highly
nonlinear in accordance with the design variables such as
the shear span-to-effective depth ratio, flexural and shear
reinforcement ratios, load and support conditions, and
material properties. In the present study, one simple
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1033
Byung-Hun Kim and Young-Mook Yun
a
P
P
45
z

(a) a/z < 0.5

a
P
w
P
z

(b) 0.5

a/z

2.0
a
P
z

(c) a/z > 2.0

P
P

Figure 2. FIBs strut-tie models for simply supported deep beams

indeterminate strut-tie model reflecting all characteristics
of the ultimate strength and behavior is presented to
conduct the rational design of the entire range of simple
deep beams. The presented indeterminate strut-tie model,
defined as a combination of arch and truss mechanisms, is
shown in Figure 3. In the presented model, the role of
horizontal shear reinforcing bars is not reflected upon
because, according to the research by Smith and Vantsiotis
(1982), Bazant (1997), Shin et al. (1999), and Zararis
(2003), the effect of horizontal shear reinforcing bars on
shear strength is insignificant when simple deep beams do
not contain plenty of horizontal reinforcing bars.
3.2. Load Distribution Ratio
A load distribution ratio, defined as the fraction of load
transferred by a truss mechanism, is proposed to help
structural designers perform the design of simple deep
beams by using the presented indeterminate strut-tie
model along with the provisions of the current design
codes. In the present study, the load distribution ratio is
determined by conducting a finite element material
nonlinear analysis of the presented indeterminate strut-
tie model. A state of simultaneous failure of the inclined
concrete strut and vertical steel tie, defined as a state of
balanced shear reinforcement ratio, is used as a
condition for determining the load distribution ratio. A
simultaneous failure of concrete strut E and steel tie D
(denoting a failure of the arch mechanism) or a
simultaneous failure of concrete strut C (or F) and steel
tie D (denoting a failure of the truss mechanism) is
assumed to occur at the balanced shear reinforcement
ratio. To determine the load distribution ratio at the state
of balanced shear reinforcement ratio, the material
nonlinear finite element analysis of the indeterminate
strut-tie model is conducted by changing the magnitude
of the applied load P and the amount of the vertical
shear reinforcement area A
tie,D
, according to the
procedure shown in Figure 4. In Figure 4, the maximum
value of P, P
max
, is determined from the flexural
strength of the deep beams, and the maximum value of
A
tie,D
, A
Dtie,max
, is the vertical shear reinforcement area
required for P
max
. The initial values of P and A
tie,D
,
P
initial
and A
Dtie,initial
, respectively, are chosen as 1% and
0.5% of their maximum values. With the presented load
distribution ratio, an optimum design of a simple deep
beam may be ensured by deciding the cross-sectional
areas of reinforcing bars at a state of the simultaneous
failure. Additionally, the ductile structural behavior
caused by the yield of the steel tie before the crushing of
the inclined concrete strut may be assured in design
practice by using a smaller load distribution ratio than
the one obtained at a state of the simultaneous failure.
1034 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I) Model & Load Distribution Ratio
D
P
a
P
A
B
F
H
L
a/2
d
z
b
Symm.
C
E
G
1 3
4 2 5 7
8 6

2
1
Figure 3. Indeterminate strut-tie model of present study
Determination of initial applied load P
initial
and initial area of steel tie D A
D tie, initial
(P
initial
= 0.01P
max
, P
max
= P
bending
= M
n
/a,
A
D

tie, initial
= 0.005A
D tie, max
, A
D tie, max
= P
max
/f
y
)
Determination of cross-sectional areas (A
strut
,
A
tie
) and modulus of elasticity (E
c
, E
t
)
of struts and ties
Material nonlinear analysis of indeterminate strut-tie model
(Max. incremental load step INC
max
= 20)
Determination of tangent
stiffness matrix K
g
Calculation of nodal displacements
and strains of struts and ties
by solving K
g
1
P
Calculation of tangent modulus of
elasticity (E
t
c
, E
t
s
) of struts and ties
for next incremental load step
I
N
C

=

I
N
C

+

1
No
P

=

P

+

0
.
0
1
P
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
INC > INC
max
Yes
A
D

t
i
e

=

A
D

t
i
e

+

0
.
0
2
A
D

t
i
e
,

i
n
i
t
i
a
l
E
t
c
(of struts C, F and/or E) < 0.01 E
c
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
f
s
(of steel tie D) > 1.001f
y
f
s
(of steel tie D) < 0.999f
y
Determination of prime design variables a/d, f
c
,

Determination of load distribution ratio

(= F
D tie
/P) for given a/d, f
c
, and (F
D tie
:
cross-sectional force of steel tie D)

Figure 4. Algorithm for determining load distribution ratio of

indeterminate strut-tie model
Since the load distribution ratio of the present study
is determined by the nonlinear analysis of indeterminate
truss structure, the axial stiffness of struts and ties
EA (E = modulus of elasticity, A = cross-sectional
areas) in accordance with the stress states of struts and
ties must be proffered. In the present study, the cross-
sectional areas of struts and ties are decided as the
maximum areas of struts and ties that they can contain,
as the method of conventional strut-tie model
approaches. As shown in Figure 5, the cross-sectional
areas of struts A and B placed at the biaxial compression
region are decided by multiplying the width of the strut
w
s
(which is the same as the depth of the equivalent
rectangular stress block a) by the thickness of the beam
b, as in Eqn 3:
(3)
where,
1
is the coefficient of the equivalent rectangular
stress block, c is the distance from the top of the beam
to the neutral axis, A
s
(=
b
bd) is the cross-sectional
area of flexural reinforcement, d is the effective depth of
the beam,
b
is the balanced flexural reinforcement
ratio, and is the variable of flexural reinforcement (in
the case of maximum flexural reinforcement ratio
max
,
= 0.75). The cross-sectional areas of inclined struts C,
E, and F placed at the shear span are decided by
A ab cb
f A
f
f
f
b
A Bstrut
y s
c
y b
c
,
. .
= = =

1
0 85 0 85
dd
multiplying the thickness of the beam b by the smaller
width of the strut and nodal zone boundary, as expressed
in the following:
(4)
(5)
(6)
where, w
C strut
is the width of strut C, w
H tie
is the width
of tie, H,
1
and
2
are the angles between the inclined
strut and horizontal axis, and l
b,1
is the width of the
bearing (or loading) plate of nodal zone 1. In the present
study, the width of the bearing or loading plate l
b
is
determined to satisfy the ACI 318M-08s (2008)
strength requirement of nodal zone, as expressed in the
following:
(7)
where
n
is the coefficient of the effective strength of
nodal zone. For nodal zones 1 and 4 which are classified
as CCT and CCC nodal zones, the values of 0.8 and 1.0
l
P
f b
b
n c
=
0 85 .
A w b w l b
F strut F strut Astrut b
= = + ( cos sin )
,

2 4 2
A w b w l
w
Estrut Estrut Gtie b,
= = + min( , cos sin
1 1 1
AAstrut b,
l b cos sin
1 4 1
+ )
A w b w l b
Cstrut Cstrut Gtie b
= = + ( cos sin )
,

2 1 2
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1035
Byung-Hun Kim and Young-Mook Yun
w
E strut
= min(w
G tie
cos
1
+ l
b,1
sin
1
,

w
A strut
cos
1
+ l
b,4
sin
1
)
w
C strut
= w
G tie
cos
2
+ l
b,1
sin
2
w
F strut
= w
A strut
cos
1
+ l
b,4
sin
2
(
1
,
2
: See fig.3)
Nodal
zone 1
Nodal
zone 4
a
w
G tie
(= w
G tie
) w
H tie
A
D tie
= Variable
value
= Clear cover 2
P
l
b,4
=
0.85 n,4
f
c b
R
l
b,1
=
0.85
n,1
f
c
b
C
z
T
w
A strut
=
= w
B strut

1
c

Figure 5. Maximum widths of struts and ties in indeterminate strut-tie model
are taken as the coefficients. The cross-sectional areas
of ties G and H placed at the bottom of the beam are
decided as A
tie
=
b
bd, the cross-sectional area of
flexural reinforcing bars. The cross-sectional area of tie
D is obtained by changing its area repeatedly in order to
reach the state of simultaneous failure of the inclined
concrete strut and vertical steel tie.
For the finite element material nonlinear analysis of
the indeterminate strut-tie model, the stress-strain
relationship of concrete suggested by Pang and Hsu
(1995) and expressed in Eqn 8 and Figure 6(a), was
employed in the present study. The tangential modulus
of elasticity of a concrete strut was evaluated by
differentiating the stress-strain relationship with the
strain of a concrete strut as expressed in Eqn 9:
(8)
f f
c c
c c
=
[
\
|

)
j

[
\
|

)
j
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

2
0 0
2
for

c
c c
c
f f
/
/
/
0
0
2
1
1
1
2 1

[
\
|

)
j
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
> for
c
/
0
1
(9)
where, f
c
is the compressive stress of a concrete strut
that corresponds to the compressive strain of a concrete
strut
c
, is the softening coefficient of concrete, and
0
is the compressive strain corresponding to the peak
compressive stress of a concrete strut defined as

0
= 2f
c
/E
c
where E
c
is the initial modulus of elasticity
of concrete (for f
c
30MPa, ; for
f
c
> 30MPa, ). Following the
ACI 318M-08s suggestion for the effective strength of
concrete struts, the softening coefficient of = 0.85 was
employed for concrete struts A and B located in the
biaxial compression region, and = 0.638(= 0.85
s
=
0.85 0.75) was employed for inclined concrete struts
C, E, and F located in the biaxial compression-tension
region. The tangential modulus of elasticity of a steel
tie, E
t
s
, was evaluated by assuming a bi-linear stress-
strain relationship of steel, as expressed in Eqn 10 and
Figure 6(b):
(10)
where E
s
is the initial modulus of elasticity of steel.
In Table 1, the procedure for determining a load
distribution ratio according to the algorithm of Figure 4
is illustrated by using a simple deep beam with a/d =
1.4, f
c
= 40 MPa, and = 0.45
b
. As a result of the finite
element material nonlinear analysis of the indeterminate
strut-tie model of the beam with the alterations of the
external applied load P and the cross-sectional area of
the vertical steel tie A
Dtie
, a simultaneous failure of strut
E and the vertical steel tie occurred at an applied load of
145.2kN. At this state, the cross-sectional area of the
vertical steel tie and the load distribution ratio of the
beam were determined as 163.3 mm
2
and 45%.
3.3. Load Distribution Ratio Associated with
Design Variables
The influence of the primary design variables of
simple deep beams on the load distribution ratio was
scrutinized by employing the presented indeterminate
strut-tie model as a numerical analysis model with
dimensions of a = 200~1200 mm, d = 400 mm,
L = 600~2600 mm, b = 100 mm, and L 2a = 200 mm.
In the analysis, the values of the primary design
E E
E E
s
t
s s y
s
t
s s y
=
= >
for
for

0 001 .
E f
c c
= + 3300 7700
E f
c c
= 4700
E E
E E
c
t
c
c
c
c
t
c
c
=
|
|
|
|
|
|

=
1 1
0
0
0

for /
/

|
|
|
|
|
|
>
1
2 1
1
2
0
( / )
/

for
c
1036 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I) Model & Load Distribution Ratio
f
c
(a) Concrete strut
f
c
f
c
f
c
0
c
f
c
= f
c
f
c
f
c
c
=
0
(b) Steel tie
f
s
f
y
E
s
t
= 0.001E
s
E
s
t
= E
s

Figure 6. Stress-strain relationships of concrete strut and steel tie

variables a/d, /
b
, and f
c
varied in the ranges of
0.5~3.0, 0.15~0.75, and 20~70 MPa, respectively.
The load distribution ratios that were determined
according to the algorithm of Figure 4 with different
design variables are shown in Figure 7. Unlike the load
distribution ratios that were proposed by the FIB (1999)
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1037
Byung-Hun Kim and Young-Mook Yun
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.5 1.0 1.5
L
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o




(
%
)
2.0
a/d = 1.61.7
FIB(1999)
= 60.0%61.5%
Foster and Gilbert (1998)
Failure of arch
mechanism
Failure of truss
mechanism
f
c
= 30 MPa
f
c
= 20 MPa
f
c
= 40 MPa
f
c
= 50 MPa
f
c
= 60 MPa
f
c
= 70 MPa
2.5 3.0
(a)
b
= 0.75
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
a/d = 1.81.9
f
c
= 30 MPa
f
c
= 20 MPa
f
c
= 40 MPa
f
c
= 50 MPa
f
c
= 60 MPa
f
c
= 70 MPa
2.5 3.0
(b)
b
= 0.45
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
a/d = 2.02.1
f
c
= 30 MPa
f
c
= 20 MPa
f
c
= 40 MPa
f
c
= 50 MPa
f
c
= 60 MPa
f
c
= 70 MPa
2.5 3.0
(c)
b
= 0.15

= 60.6%62.1%
L
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o




(
%
)

= 61.2%62.6%

L
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o




(
%
)

Figure 7. Load distribution ratios associated with primary

design variables
T
a
b
l
e

1
.

I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e

o
f

l
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o

f
o
r
,

a
/
d
=

1
.
4
,

f
c
=

4
0

M
P
a
a
n
d

=

0
.
4
5
b
W
i
d
t
h
s

o
f

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
o
d
u
l
u
s

o
f
&

b
e
a
r
i
n
g

p
l
a
t
e
s

a
r
e
a

o
f

s
t
r
u
t

e
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y

o
f

s
t
r
u
t
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f
(
m
m
)
(
m
m
2
)
(
M
P
a
)
i
n
c
l
i
n
e
d

s
t
r
u
t
s
h
e
a
r

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
(
k
N
)
l
b
,
1
l
b
,
4
A
C

s
t
r
u
t
A
E

s
t
r
u
t
A
F

s
t
r
u
t
E
tC

s
t
r
u
t
E
tE

s
t
r
u
t
E
tF

s
t
r
u
t
S
t
r
u
t

C
S
t
r
u
t

E
S
t
r
u
t

F
A
D
,
t
i
e
F
a
i
l
/
S
a
f
e
1
4
.
5
2
5
.
3
4
.
3
7
0
1
7
8
9
6
4
1
1
2
6
8
2
8
5
6
8
2
6
2
3
2
2
8
5
6
8

0
.
0
5

2
9
.
0
4
1
0
.
7
8
.
5
7
4
1
7
9
2
2
7
1
1
5
8
8
2
8
5
6
0
2
3
5
9
8
2
8
5
6
0

0
.
2
1

4
3
.
5
6
1
6
.
0
1
2
.
8
7
8
1
8
9
4
9
0
1
1
9
0
9
2
8
5
4
7
2
0
3
6
8
2
8
5
4
7

0
.
4
8

5
8
.
0
8
2
1
.
4
1
7
.
1
8
2
1
8
9
7
5
3
1
2
2
2
9
2
8
5
3
0
1
5
5
0
1
2
8
5
3
0

0
.
8
8

7
2
.
5
9
2
6
.
7
2
1
.
4
8
6
1
8
1
0
0
1
6
1
2
5
4
9
2
8
3
9
2
3
2
1
2
8
3
9
2

4
.
0
6

8
7
.
1
1
3
2
.
0
2
5
.
6
9
0
1
8
1
0
2
7
9
1
2
8
6
9
2
6
9
5
5
2
6
9
2
6
9
5
5

3
6
.
9

1
0
1
.
6
3
3
7
.
4
2
9
.
9
9
4
1
8
1
0
5
4
2
1
3
1
8
9
2
5
5
5
1
2
8
7
2
5
5
5
1

6
9
.
0

1
1
6
.
1
7
4
2
.
7
3
4
.
2
9
8
1
9
1
0
8
0
6
1
3
5
1
0
2
4
1
4
9
2
7
0
2
4
1
4
9

1
0
0
.
7

1
3
0
.
6
9
4
8
.
1
3
8
.
4
1
0
2
1
9
1
1
0
6
9
1
3
8
3
0
2
2
7
2
0
2
9
3
2
2
7
2
0

1
3
2
.
1

1
4
5
.
2
1
5
3
.
4
4
2
.
7
1
0
6
2
0
1
1
3
3
2
1
4
1
5
0
2
1
2
2
6
2
7
0
2
1
2
2
6

1
6
3
.
3

L
o
a
d

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
i
o

=

P
w
/
P
=

F
D
,
t
i
e
/
P
=

(
A
D
,
t
i
e

f
y
)
/
P

=
(
1
6
3
.
3

4
0
0
)
/
1
4
5
2
1
0

=
4
4
.
9
%

:

S
a
f
e
;

:

F
a
i
l

and Foster and Gilbert (1998) in which the ratios change

linearly in proportion to the shear span-to-effective
depth ratio, the load distribution ratios of the present
study change nonlinearly according to the primary
design variables. This result implies that the present
approach reflects not only the nonlinear structural
behavior and ultimate strength of simple deep beams but
also the variations of the load-resistant capacities of the
arch and truss mechanisms of simple deep beams due to
the primary design variables.
Figure 7 shows that the load transferred by the arch
mechanism is similar to that used by Foster and Gilbert
(1998) when the shear span-to-effective depth ratio a/d
is less than 1.0, and the load transferred by the truss
mechanism increases as the ratio a/d increases.
However, unlike the results of earlier studies by the FIB
(1999) and Foster and Gilbert (1998) where 100% of the
applied load is transferred by the truss mechanism when
the ratio a/d is greater than 1.80 and 1.56, respectively,
the present study reveals that more than 20% of the
applied load is still carried by the arch mechanism when
the ratio a/d is greater than 2.0. This indicates that the
shear-resistant capacity by the concrete struts making up
the arch mechanism exists although the ratio a/d
increases, as proven to be true in the previous studies
(Leonhardt 1965; Park and Paulay 1975; Kimet al. 2003).
Figure 7 also shows that the load distribution ratios at
a state of simultaneous failures of arch and truss
mechanisms are very much analogous regardless of the
flexural reinforcement ratio and the compressive
strength of concrete f
c
. This is inferred from the fact that
the stiffness of both of the concrete struts and steel ties
constituting the arch and truss mechanisms is increased
proportionally due to the increase of and f
c
, although
the failure strength is augmented by the increases of
and f
c
, as shown in Figure 8.
The ratio a/d, at which a simultaneous failure of the
arch and truss mechanisms occurs, decreases when the
flexural reinforcement ratio increases, as shown in
Figure 7. Namely, the range of a/d where deep beams
fail due to the failure of the arch mechanism decreases
because the load-carrying capacity of the arch
mechanism improves by the increase of the flexural
reinforcement ratio. This result is similar to the
previous studies (Zsutty 1971; Okamura and Higai
1980; Niwa et al. 1986; Eurocode 2 1992; Bazant 1997;
ACI 318-99 1999) expressing that the load transferred
by the arch mechanism in simple deep beams increases
as the flexural reinforcement ratio increases. This
demonstrates that the load distribution ratio used in the
present study considers accurately the effect of the
flexural reinforcement ratio on the structural behavior of
simple deep beams.
As the strength of concrete increases, the load
transferred by the arch mechanism increases in the range
of a/d (1.6~1.7) and decreases in the range of, as
shown in Figure 7(a). This is due to the relative increase
of the role of a/d (1.6~1.7) concrete to steel when the
strength of concrete increases, as explained in Figure 9.
In addition, the load-carrying capacities of the arch and
truss mechanisms, although they are not the same,
increase almost linearly as the strength of concrete
increases. This implies that the amount of shear
reinforcing bars in a design must be augmented to
ensure the ductile shear behavior of simple deep beams
if concrete with increased strength is used.
3.4. Equation of Load Distribution Ratio
An equation of load distribution ratio is developed in the
present study through the curve fittings of Figure 7. The
equation associated with the primary design variables
1038 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I) Model & Load Distribution Ratio
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
0
0.5 1.0 1.5
a/d = 1.61.7 a/d = 1.81.9
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
200
300
400
500
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

l
o
a
d

(
K
N
)
f
c
= 70 MPa,
f
c
= 30 MPa,
f
c
= 30 MPa,
f
c
= 70 MPa,
b
= 0.75
b
= 0.75
b
= 0.45
b
= 0.45
Figure 8. Failure strength associated with primary design variables
450
Load transferred by truss mechanism (%)
Load transferred by arch mechanism (%)
Concrete strength f
c
(MPa)
L
o
a
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

r
a
t
i
o

p
/
p
f
c

=

2
0
(
%
)400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
20
35.2
43.9
47.1
52.9
56.1
64.8
51.4
48.6
49.7
50.3
48.9
51.1
30 40 50 60 70
Figure 9. Load-carrying capacities of arch and truss mechanisms
associated with concrete strength (a/d = 1.3, = 0.75
b
)
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1039
Byung-Hun Kim and Young-Mook Yun
can be directly applied to the design of simple deep
beams. The developed equation is as follows:
where, (= P
w
/P,%) , defined in Eqns 1 and 2, is the
load distribution ratio of the presented indeterminate
strut-tie model, and
b
is the balanced flexural
reinforcement ratio of the beam. , expressed in terms
of /
b
, is the value of a/d that decides the type of
governing failure mechanism between the arch and truss
mechanisms, and is the parameter that considers the
variation of the load distribution ratio according to
primary design variables. The parameters are defined as
follows:
(12)
(13)
Figure 10 shows that the load distribution ratios
determined from Eqn 11 and the finite element

=
+ ( ) ( ) >
+ ( ) (
1 40
2 3
2
/ / ,
/ /
b c
b
a d f MPa
a d ))
|

|
|
|
<
= + +
2
40
0 07 13 1 5
,
/
. .
f MPa
a d
f
c
c
for
/ /
b
a d ( ) for

=
[
\
|

)
j
2 1
2
3
.
b
(11)


(%)
/
/
/
. .
= ( ) +
( )

f
a d
a d
c
b
40
200 40
1 1 0 25
ln



/
(%) .
b
a
d
a
d
( )
[
\
|
|

)
j
j
<
=
[
\
|

)
j
+
for
61 5
[
\
|

)
j
2

b
a
d
for
material nonlinear analyses of the presented
indeterminate strut-tie model agree well, thus allowing
structural designers to employ them in the strut-tie
model design of simple deep beams subject to various
design conditions. Figure 11 illustrates a design
procedure that utilizes the load distribution ratio of the
indeterminate strut-tie model.
By numerical analysis
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
By proposed eqn. (11)
(b) f
c
= 65 MPa and

= 0.55

b
By numerical analysis
Shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d)
100
10
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0
1.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
By proposed eqn. (11)
(a) f
c
= 28 MPa and

= 0.55

b
L
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o




(
%
)

L
o
a
d

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
i
o




(
%
)

Determination of initial design conditions including

a/d, f
c
, , loading and support conditions, etc.
Selection of indeterminate strut-tie model
for given initial design conditions
Determination of load distribution ratio
by using eqn. (11)
Determination of cross-sectional forces of every
strut and tie by using load distribution ratio
and force equilibrium conditions
Modification of initial
design conditions
Increase of eff. strengh
of concrete strut by
confining concrete strut
using reinforcement
Increase of eff. strength
of nodal zone by modifying
design conditions
on loading and/or
bearing plates
Determination of required area of reinforcement
(= areas of steel ties). regulations of current design
codes for minimum ratio, anchorage, details of
reinforcement, etc. are effective.
Yes
Yes
No
No
f
strut
<
s
f
c
(f
strut
: compressive stress of concrete strut;
s
: coefficient of eff. strength of concrete strut)
f
node
<
n
f
c
(f
node
: compressive stress of Nodal Zone Face;
n
:
coefficient of eff. strength of Nodal Zone Face)

Figure 11. Design procedure utilizing load distribution ratio

Figure 10. Comparison of load distribution ratio obtained from numerical analysis and proposed equation
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The structural behavior of simply supported reinforced
concrete deep beams is very complicated by the
mechanical relationships between the shear span-to-
effective depth ratio, flexural reinforcement ratio, load
and support conditions, and material properties. To
establish a strut-tie model approach as a rational design
method, a proper strut-tie model reflecting true load
transfer mechanisms of the deep beams must be
presented, and the primary design variables influencing
the ultimate strength and behavior of the deep beams
must be deliberated in the design process as well.
In this study, a simple indeterminate strut-tie model
that reflects the characteristics of the ultimate strength
and behavior is presented for the design of simply
supported reinforced concrete deep beams. In addition,
a load distribution ratio of the indeterminate strut-tie
model is proposed to help structural engineers design
the deep beams by using the strut-tie model
approaches of the current design codes. In the
determination of the load distribution ratio, a concept
of a balanced shear reinforcement ratio requiring a
simultaneous failure of inclined concrete strut and
vertical steel tie is introduced to ensure the ductile
shear design of the deep beams. The effect of the
primary design variables including shear span-to-
effective depth ratio, flexural reinforcement ratio, and
compressive strength of concrete are also reflected
through the numerous finite element material nonlinear
analyses of the indeterminate strut-tie model with
different primary design variables. With the proposed
load distribution ratio, the changes of stiffness of all
elements constituting the load transfer mechanisms of
the deep beams may be appropriately reflected in
design. An opportunity to help structural designers
conduct the practical strut-tie model design of the deep
beams may also be provided from the present study,
which provides an equation of load distribution ratio
embracing various design conditions.
In the companion paper, the validity of the presented
model and load distribution ratio is examined by
evaluating the ultimate strength of various simply
supported reinforced concrete deep beams tested to
failure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Korea Research
Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government
(MOEHRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund) (KRF-
2006-214-D00157).
REFERENCES
Alshegeir, A. (1992). Analysis and Design of Disturbed Regions with
Strut-Tie Models, PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (2007). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,
4
th
Edition, Washington D.C., USA.
American Concrete Institute (1999). Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI
318R-99), Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
American Concrete Institute (2008). Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M08) and Commentary,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
ACI Subcommittee 4451 (2002). Examples for the Design for
Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, American
Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA.
Alcocer, S.M. and Uribe, C.M. (2008). Monolithic and cyclic
behavior of deep beams designed using strut-and-tie models,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 327337.
Ashour, F. and Yang, K.H. (2008). Application of plasticity theory
to reinforced concrete deep beams: a review, Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 60, No. 9, pp. 657664.
Bakir, P.G. and Boduroglu, H.M. (2005). Mechanical behavior
and non-linear analysis of short beams using softened truss and
direct strut & tie models, Engineering Structures, Vol. 27,
No. 4, pp. 639651.
Bazant, Z.P. (1997). Fracturing truss model: size effect in shear
failure of reinforced concrete, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 12, pp. 12761288.
British Standards Institution (1997). Code of Practice for Design and
Construction (BS8110 Part I), British Standard, UK.
Canadian Standards Association (1984). Design of Concrete Structures
for Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-M84), Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
Concrete Design Committee (1995). The Design of Concrete (NZS
3101: Part I and II), New Zealand Standard, New Zealand.
Eurocode 2 (1992). Design of Concrete Structures, Part I: General
Rules and Rules for Buildings (DD ENV 1992-1-1), Commission
of the European Communities, UK.
Foster, S.J. and Gilbert, R.I. (1998). Experimental studies on high-
strength concrete deep beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 95,
No. 4, pp. 382390.
Foster, S.J. and Malik, A.R. (2002). Evaluation of efficiency factor
models used in strut-and-tie model, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 5, pp. 569577.
Hwang, S.J., Lu, W.Y. and Lee, H.J. (2000). Shear strength
prediction for deep beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97,
No. 3, pp. 367376.
Hwang, S.J. and Lu, W.Y. (2002). Strength prediction for
discontinuity regions by softened strut-and-tie model, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, No. 12, pp. 15191526.
1040 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011
An Indeterminate Strut-Tie Model and Load Distribution Ratio for RC Deep Beams - (I) Model & Load Distribution Ratio
The International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) (1999).
Structural Concrete; Textbook on Behavior, Design and
Performance Updated Knowledge of the CEB/FIP Model Code
1999, Vol. 3, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Kim, W., Jeong, J.P. and Kim, D.J. (2003). Non-Bernoulli-
compatibility truss model for RC members subjected to combined
action of flexure and shear (I) - Its derivation of theoretical
concept, Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers,
Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 12471256.
Leonhardt, F. (1965). Reducing the shear reinforcement in
reinforced concrete beams and slabs, Magazine of Concrete
Research, Vol. 17, No. 53, pp. 187198.
Matamoros, A.B. and Wong, K.H. (2003). Design of simply
supported deep beams using strut-and-tie models, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No. 6, pp. 704712.
Niwa, J., Yamada, K., Yokozawa, K. and Okamura, M. (1986).
Revaluation of the equation for shear strength of RC-beams
without web reinforcement, Proceeding of Japan Society of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 372, pp. 19861988.
Okamura, H. and Higai, T. (1980). Proposed design equation for shear
strength of RC beams without web reinforcement, Proceeding of
Japan Society of Civil Engineering, No. 300, pp. 131141.
Pang, X.B. and Hsu, T.T.C. (1995). Behavior of reinforced concrete
membrane elements in shear, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92,
No. 6, pp. 665679.
Park, H.G., Kim, Y.G. and Eom, T.S. (2005). Direct inelastic strut-
tie model using secant stiffness, Journal of the Korea Concrete
Institute, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 201212.
Park, J.W. and Kuchma, D.A. (2007). Strut-and-tie model analysis
for strength prediction of deep beams, ACI Structural Journal,
Vol. 104, No. 6, pp. 657666.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1970). Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Wiley, NY, USA.
Quintero-Febres, C.G., Parra-Montesinos, G. and Wight, J.K.
(2006). Strength of struts in deep concrete members designed
using strut-and-tie method, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 103,
No. 4, pp. 577586.
Shin, S.W., Lee, K.S., Moon, J. and Ghosh, S.K. (1999). Shear
strength of reinforced high-strength concrete beams with shear
span-to-depth ratios between 1.5 and 2.5, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 549556.
Smith, K.M. and Vantsiotis, A.S. (1982). Shear strength
of deep beams, ACI Material Journal, Vol. 79, No. 3,
pp. 201213.
Tjhin, T.N. and Kuchma, D.A. (2002). Computer-based tools for
design by strut-and-tie method: advances and challenges, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 99, No. 5, pp. 586594.
Tjhin, T.N. and Kuchma, D.A. (2007). Integrated analysis and
design tool for the strut-and-tie model, Engineering Structure,
Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 30423052.
Yang, K.H. and Ashour, F. (2008). Code modeling of reinforced-
concrete deep beams, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 60,
No. 6, pp. 441454.
Yun, Y.M. (2000). Nonlinear strut-tie model approach for
structural concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No. 4,
pp. 581590.
Zararis, P.D. (2003). Shear compression failure in reinforced
concrete deep beams, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 129, No. 4, pp. 544553.
Zsutty, T.C. (1971). Shear strength prediction for separate
categories of simple beam tests, ACI Journal, Vol. 68, No. 2,
pp. 138143.
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 14 No. 6 2011 1041
Byung-Hun Kim and Young-Mook Yun